HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

LeBrun: NHL made new offer to NHLPA on Thursday (12/27)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-28-2012, 03:51 PM
  #176
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freudian View Post
The league has done it's part to get it done. Now it's up to Fehr to act like an adult and come back with something reasonable without any poison pills (guaranteed cap, cap on escrow). Until we know he won't get too greedy, there isn't much reason to be overly optimistic.

Cap of $60M next year?
Every single UFA is about to get screwed.

No thanks.

RedWingsNow* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 03:51 PM
  #177
Kane One
Global Moderator
🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨
 
Kane One's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Brooklyn, New NY
Country: United States
Posts: 27,419
vCash: 2810
This $60MM cap is ********.

__________________
++++++++++[>+++++++>++++++++++>+++>+<<<<
-]>++++++.>+.+++++++++++++++.>+++++++++.<-.
>-------.<<-----.>----.>.<<+++++++++++.>-------------
-.+++++++++++++.-------.--.+++++++++++++.+.>+.>.

New and improved Hockey Standings
"A jimmie for a jimmie makes the whole world rustled." ó -31-
Kane One is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 03:55 PM
  #178
NJDevs26
Moderator
Status quo
 
NJDevs26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 22,706
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaneone View Post
This $60MM cap is ********.
I do think it's a bit of an unneccesary bloodletting, but revenues aren't going to be the same as they were for a full season this year so you kinda need to have it go down drastically. Having a $70 million cap with 60-70% of revenues you'd get from a full season is a LOT more HRR for the players than whatever the paper number is now.

I'd try to work that number up to $63-65 million and go from there.

NJDevs26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 04:00 PM
  #179
cheswick
Non-registered User
 
cheswick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Peg City
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,943
vCash: 574
The 60 million cap is a bit confusing. I'm sure the league purposefully didn't go the whole way they were willing to to leave room for another proposal after the NHLPA's counter.

cheswick is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 04:03 PM
  #180
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,405
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
I completely disagree with this - the quality of hockey has steadily decreased under the previous CBA and I would like nothing more than to see it gone, for good.
How hwas the quality of hockey decreased and what was the reason?

Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 04:11 PM
  #181
I Am Classless
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Country: Falkland Islands
Posts: 1,613
vCash: 500
I don't know how the 60m cap is going to effect how much the teams that are apparently in "trouble" will spend, because most of the teams that are "losing money" (again, no one knows what most of the books look like) don't spend too close to the cap ceiling.

In fact, if I'm a GM at one of those teams, I'd see a move directed towards parity and I'd bother my boss about a shiny new free agent or two. It's interesting to try and theorycraft the consequences of a lower cap (even if I think that's the one thing Fehr will try to tear at) because really, who knows?

I Am Classless is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 04:16 PM
  #182
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,405
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
Was there??

there were 10 different teams that were in the previous 7 Finals before the last lockout.

there were 12 different teams that were in the last 7 Finals post lockout.

and looking further, the split between large and small markets were fairly even in terms of representation in the finals during both periods.
You're missing the point. During the 94-05 CBA it was all about payroll, only one team without a top15 payroll won the cup (Tampa with 16th highest payroll in 2004) and the differences between team payrolls was MASSIVE. During the last CBA the differences between payrolls were much smaller, thus the main advantage came from team management, not payroll.

Parity doesn't mean each team wins the cup every 30 years, it means payroll playing much smaller role, i.e. it's up to the GM to build a winning team.

Last season the difference between salary floor and salary ceiling was roughly 30%, during the previous CBA the differences between lowest and highest payrolls was ~400%.

Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 04:17 PM
  #183
JmanWingsFan
Your average Jman
 
JmanWingsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Somewhere
Country: United States
Posts: 4,465
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
Pro player here and I'm not buying the above.

The cap was at 39 million in 05-06 and the players did very well.

the cap at 60 million? teams are going to do just fine.

and if you can't field a competitive team capable of winning the Stanley Cup at 60 Million, you should find another line of work.
Except the players are going to fight tooth and nail to prevent salary rollbacks that would make this cap more plausible. Here, let me show you the mess this is going to make. Let's start with the San Jose Sharks

The Sharks currently have a cap hit of $65 Million. After all their free agents depart this year they will have $56 Million cap hit and approximately $4 million to fill their needs which include but are not limited to:

-2nd Line RW
-3rd Line C
-3rd Line RF
-17th forward on the bench
-7th Defenseman
-Backup Goaltender

Sure, they could buyout one of their very expensive core pieces that play an important roll on their team (Marleau, Thornton, Pavelski, Boyle, and Burns), but that leaves too big a hole to fill and sets them back big time. Even if they renegotiate a cheaper contract, they're much likely to look inward first to fill these needs on cheap league minimum contracts (I heard League Minimum was going up as well...) Yeah, the Sharks are kind of screwed and won't even think about free agency as they fight to construct a whole roster that can fit under the cap.

Let's look at the Bruins...
They have $68 Million in total cap hit committed this year. Once all their free agents depart, the total cap payroll will be about $53 Million assuming they use their free buyout on Marc Savard and will have $8 Million to spend... They need:

-2nd Line RW
-6th Defender
-16th and 17th forwards on the bench

Assuming you want some cap space to allow wiggle room, they're likely to roll with Jared (Jordan? please forgive me if I messed his name up) Knight and sign some 4th line plugs for their bench...

Here is the situation for the Chicago Blackhawks:
They have a $64 million cap payroll. With FAs departing, they will have $59 Million cap payroll, and depending on how you look at it, they'll need

-2/3rds of a second line
-Back Goaltender

Someone important is going to get cut, and even then, the Hawks will have to roll with Brandon Saad and some other cheap prospect as they will not have any room to sign a FA


Minnesota Wild:
Will have $55 Million to spend after FAs leave. If Harding can't play anymore, then they need a goaltending duo with Hacket likely the starter. It's buh-bye Backstrom and Pierre Buchard as the Wild will have to plug in important holes with their prospects as they don't have any money to spend on FAs


Buffalo Sabres:
Will have $49.5 Million assuming Leino is bought out to spend with FA departure and . They need 2 defensemen and a 2nd Line LW. They probably roll with Grigorenko as a center giving them four centers, and Foligno gives them four LWers. They could sign 2 Dmen @3.5 Million each giving them a cap payroll of $56 million with a little wiggle room.

Other teams with similar situations where they will be forced to find cheap plugs in order to have a full 23 man roster include, but are not limited to:

-Calgary Flames
-Philadelphia Flyers
-Detroit Red Wings
-Los Angeles Kings
-Motreal Canadiens
-Toronto Maple Leafs
-New York Rangers
-Pittsburgh Penguins
-Tampa Bay Lightning
-Vancouver Canucks
-Washington Capitals

We're talking 16 teams (a tick over half the league) that will be having roster crunches or issues. The rest of the teams either have a bunch of roster spaces to fill (New Jersey, Winnipeg, Ottawa, Anaheim) and will probably resign what they have already, or are teams that traditionally aren't very good (New York Islanders, Florida Panthers), or don't spend money period and have pretty filled rosters as is (Colorado, Dallas, St. Louis)...

Do you get my point now? This is a serious problem that's going to screw all the good teams for no reason whatsoever. This cap hit is bad news.

JmanWingsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 04:17 PM
  #184
Colin226
NJ Devils STH
 
Colin226's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Flemington, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 2,783
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
How hwas the quality of hockey decreased and what was the reason?
Because Marty Brodeur is being held back by that damn trapezoid!!

Colin226 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 04:18 PM
  #185
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,403
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by du5566 View Post
There is no way the PA can argue "good faith" in court..... The league has touched on all the issues in every offer. If Fehr pushes this to the courts then he is going after the Cap.
So the 57 % is off the table because the CBA has expired and the owners get to reset the starting point for negotiations, but the cap is sacrosanct ? Its is also a product of that non enforceable expired CBA. I'm not saying it is wise to go after the cap, but if the owners want to disavow the system they demanded be implemented last time, they can't do it selectively.

sandysan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 04:18 PM
  #186
Xref
Registered User
 
Xref's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 753
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
How hwas the quality of hockey decreased and what was the reason?
It has become overly systemically defensive in nature with little creativity allowed. The salary cap has made it virtually impossible to build and maintain a team of highly skilled players up and down the lineup. Instead, each team features a few stars, and a bunch of programmable drones.

Aside from all the vomit inducing math, this is another reason I dislike the cap system. But I understand why it's in place.

Xref is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 04:20 PM
  #187
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,405
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
Cap of $60M next year?
Every single UFA is about to get screwed.

No thanks.
Donald Fehr said that PA is willing to take 50-50, if he's not lying (which is possible), that shouldn't be a problem for the PA.

Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 04:22 PM
  #188
Do Make Say Think
Soul & Onward
 
Do Make Say Think's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 16,289
vCash: 256
Well the NHL moved on a few key points meaning that Fehr has basically won since the owners seem to have buckled under the pressure before the players did.

This is an unexpected turn of events; let's see how greedy Fehr will get in trying to get more out of the owners.

Do Make Say Think is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 04:26 PM
  #189
melinko
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Minnesota
Country: United States
Posts: 3,745
vCash: 2551
Quote:
Originally Posted by JmanWingsFan View Post
Except the players are going to fight tooth and nail to prevent salary rollbacks that would make this cap more plausible. Here, let me show you the mess this is going to make. Let's start with the San Jose Sharks

The Sharks currently have a cap hit of $65 Million. After all their free agents depart this year they will have $56 Million cap hit and approximately $4 million to fill their needs which include but are not limited to:

-2nd Line RW
-3rd Line C
-3rd Line RF
-17th forward on the bench
-7th Defenseman
-Backup Goaltender

Sure, they could buyout one of their very expensive core pieces that play an important roll on their team (Marleau, Thornton, Pavelski, Boyle, and Burns), but that leaves too big a hole to fill and sets them back big time. Even if they renegotiate a cheaper contract, they're much likely to look inward first to fill these needs on cheap league minimum contracts (I heard League Minimum was going up as well...) Yeah, the Sharks are kind of screwed and won't even think about free agency as they fight to construct a whole roster that can fit under the cap.

Let's look at the Bruins...
They have $68 Million in total cap hit committed this year. Once all their free agents depart, the total cap payroll will be about $53 Million assuming they use their free buyout on Marc Savard and will have $8 Million to spend... They need:

-2nd Line RW
-6th Defender
-16th and 17th forwards on the bench

Assuming you want some cap space to allow wiggle room, they're likely to roll with Jared (Jordan? please forgive me if I messed his name up) Knight and sign some 4th line plugs for their bench...

Here is the situation for the Chicago Blackhawks:
They have a $64 million cap payroll. With FAs departing, they will have $59 Million cap payroll, and depending on how you look at it, they'll need

-2/3rds of a second line
-Back Goaltender

Someone important is going to get cut, and even then, the Hawks will have to roll with Brandon Saad and some other cheap prospect as they will not have any room to sign a FA


Minnesota Wild:
Will have $55 Million to spend after FAs leave. If Harding can't play anymore, then they need a goaltending duo with Hacket likely the starter. It's buh-bye Backstrom and Pierre Buchard as the Wild will have to plug in important holes with their prospects as they don't have any money to spend on FAs



Buffalo Sabres:
Will have $49.5 Million assuming Leino is bought out to spend with FA departure and . They need 2 defensemen and a 2nd Line LW. They probably roll with Grigorenko as a center giving them four centers, and Foligno gives them four LWers. They could sign 2 Dmen @3.5 Million each giving them a cap payroll of $56 million with a little wiggle room.

Other teams with similar situations where they will be forced to find cheap plugs in order to have a full 23 man roster include, but are not limited to:

-Calgary Flames
-Philadelphia Flyers
-Detroit Red Wings
-Los Angeles Kings
-Motreal Canadiens
-Toronto Maple Leafs
-New York Rangers
-Pittsburgh Penguins
-Tampa Bay Lightning
-Vancouver Canucks
-Washington Capitals

We're talking 16 teams (a tick over half the league) that will be having roster crunches or issues. The rest of the teams either have a bunch of roster spaces to fill (New Jersey, Winnipeg, Ottawa, Anaheim) and will probably resign what they have already, or are teams that traditionally aren't very good (New York Islanders, Florida Panthers), or don't spend money period and have pretty filled rosters as is (Colorado, Dallas, St. Louis)...

Do you get my point now? This is a serious problem that's going to screw all the good teams for no reason whatsoever. This cap hit is bad news.
While there is no question it would be better for the Wild to have more cap space I think the Wild's plan was replacing Backstrom/Bouchard/Cullen/Heatley with prospects either way.

Defense is probably the only area they would have trouble because outside of Brodin no one is ready to step in right away if they wanted to make more than 1 change there.

But yes overall it will handicap the teams the NHL should want strong.

melinko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 04:27 PM
  #190
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,614
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
Cap of $60M next year?
Every single UFA is about to get screwed.

No thanks.
And yet it's not really any different under what the PA proposed. They seem to have zero issues throwing their own under the bus when it suits them.

__________________
"Itís not as if Donald Fehr was lying to us, several players said. Rather, itís as if he has been economical with information, these players believe, not sharing facts these players consider to be vital."
Riptide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 04:28 PM
  #191
I Am Score*
---BradD---
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 1,666
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JmanWingsFan View Post
Except the players are going to fight tooth and nail to prevent salary rollbacks that would make this cap more plausible. Here, let me show you the mess this is going to make. Let's start with the San Jose Sharks

The Sharks currently have a cap hit of $65 Million. After all their free agents depart this year they will have $56 Million cap hit and approximately $4 million to fill their needs which include but are not limited to:

-2nd Line RW
-3rd Line C
-3rd Line RF
-17th forward on the bench
-7th Defenseman
-Backup Goaltender

Sure, they could buyout one of their very expensive core pieces that play an important roll on their team (Marleau, Thornton, Pavelski, Boyle, and Burns), but that leaves too big a hole to fill and sets them back big time. Even if they renegotiate a cheaper contract, they're much likely to look inward first to fill these needs on cheap league minimum contracts (I heard League Minimum was going up as well...) Yeah, the Sharks are kind of screwed and won't even think about free agency as they fight to construct a whole roster that can fit under the cap.

Let's look at the Bruins...
They have $68 Million in total cap hit committed this year. Once all their free agents depart, the total cap payroll will be about $53 Million assuming they use their free buyout on Marc Savard and will have $8 Million to spend... They need:

-2nd Line RW
-6th Defender
-16th and 17th forwards on the bench

Assuming you want some cap space to allow wiggle room, they're likely to roll with Jared (Jordan? please forgive me if I messed his name up) Knight and sign some 4th line plugs for their bench...

Here is the situation for the Chicago Blackhawks:
They have a $64 million cap payroll. With FAs departing, they will have $59 Million cap payroll, and depending on how you look at it, they'll need

-2/3rds of a second line
-Back Goaltender

Someone important is going to get cut, and even then, the Hawks will have to roll with Brandon Saad and some other cheap prospect as they will not have any room to sign a FA


Minnesota Wild:
Will have $55 Million to spend after FAs leave. If Harding can't play anymore, then they need a goaltending duo with Hacket likely the starter. It's buh-bye Backstrom and Pierre Buchard as the Wild will have to plug in important holes with their prospects as they don't have any money to spend on FAs


Buffalo Sabres:
Will have $49.5 Million assuming Leino is bought out to spend with FA departure and . They need 2 defensemen and a 2nd Line LW. They probably roll with Grigorenko as a center giving them four centers, and Foligno gives them four LWers. They could sign 2 Dmen @3.5 Million each giving them a cap payroll of $56 million with a little wiggle room.

Other teams with similar situations where they will be forced to find cheap plugs in order to have a full 23 man roster include, but are not limited to:

-Calgary Flames
-Philadelphia Flyers
-Detroit Red Wings
-Los Angeles Kings
-Motreal Canadiens
-Toronto Maple Leafs
-New York Rangers
-Pittsburgh Penguins
-Tampa Bay Lightning
-Vancouver Canucks
-Washington Capitals

We're talking 16 teams (a tick over half the league) that will be having roster crunches or issues. The rest of the teams either have a bunch of roster spaces to fill (New Jersey, Winnipeg, Ottawa, Anaheim) and will probably resign what they have already, or are teams that traditionally aren't very good (New York Islanders, Florida Panthers), or don't spend money period and have pretty filled rosters as is (Colorado, Dallas, St. Louis)...

Do you get my point now? This is a serious problem that's going to screw all the good teams for no reason whatsoever. This cap hit is bad news.
I agree with most every team on that list but Washington doesn't need that many plugs. Defenseman, yes. Forwards, no. They have alot of depth and are great at recruiting young players anyways.

I Am Score* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 04:29 PM
  #192
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
Cap of $60M next year?
Every single UFA is about to get screwed.
Big time. And in compensation, more and more players will be pushed down to league minimum.

The League knows this. By now they must know the PA's leadership team is smart enough to figure these things out, too.

Looking forward to next steps.

  Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 04:30 PM
  #193
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
And yet it's not really any different under what the PA proposed.
The PA's proposals cover existing contracts in a different way, leaving more cap room for impending UFAs.

There is a fair bit of difference - one of the locals (ottawa(?) I think) has done a fairly detailed analysis - the gulf is not insubstantial.

  Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 04:41 PM
  #194
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,614
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JmanWingsFan View Post
Except the players are going to fight tooth and nail to prevent salary rollbacks that would make this cap more plausible.

We're talking 16 teams (a tick over half the league) that will be having roster crunches or issues. The rest of the teams either have a bunch of roster spaces to fill (New Jersey, Winnipeg, Ottawa, Anaheim) and will probably resign what they have already, or are teams that traditionally aren't very good (New York Islanders, Florida Panthers), or don't spend money period and have pretty filled rosters as is (Colorado, Dallas, St. Louis)...

Do you get my point now? This is a serious problem that's going to screw all the good teams for no reason whatsoever. This cap hit is bad news.
BS. Next July there will be 8 teams with salaries over 56m (salaries, NOT cap hits). 11 with salaries over 50m. The average salary committed is ~46m. Yes teams like SJ or Calgary or Chicago might have to make a trade. Yes it's going to suck - but c'est la vie. These GMs all knew that things were going to change. Those same GMs choose to go out and spend to a 70m cap (that the NHL said would likely change, and that the NHL did not want to see increased before the CBA ended).

Looking back, Shero did a great job of shedding salary. Things will still be tight at 60m, but it won't be the end of the world.

Riptide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 04:42 PM
  #195
Xref
Registered User
 
Xref's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 753
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
Cap of $60M next year?
Every single UFA is about to get screwed.

No thanks.
Well then the players can institute a revenue sharing program, whereby the richest players share their income with the screwed players. I guess this concept should only apply to owners though, eh?

Xref is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 04:46 PM
  #196
JmanWingsFan
Your average Jman
 
JmanWingsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Somewhere
Country: United States
Posts: 4,465
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
Every team other than Toronto made the playoffs during the last CBA.
Since the last CBA:
Ducks have made playoffs: 5 times out of 7 years
Bruins have made Playoffs: 5 times out of 7 years
Sabres: 4 times out of 7 years
Flames: 4 times out of 7 years (Have not made playoffs since 2010 due to horrible mismanagement, nothing to do with the cap)

Hurricanes: 2 times out of 7 years
Blackhawks: 4 times out of 7 years (4 straight years starting in 2009 as their high draft picks finally developed

Avalanche: 3 times out of 7 years (Old guard retired, team has been in flux since)
Blue Jackets: 1 time in 7 years
Stars: 3 times out of 7 years (haven't been in the playoffs since 2008 due to mismanagement)

Red Wings: 7 times out of 7 years
Oilers: 1 time out of 7 years
Panthers: 1 time out of 7 years
Kings: 3 times out of 7 years (Hadn't made playoffs until 2010; High draft picks finally developed along with strong draft classes)

Wild: 2 times out of 7 years
Canadiens: 5 times out of 7 years
Predators: 6 times out of 7 years
Devils: 6 times out of 7 years
Islanders: 0 times out of 7 years
Rangers: 6 times out of 7 years
Senators: 5 times out of 7 years
Flyers: 6 times out of 7 years
Coyotes: 3 times out of 7 years (three straight seasons from '10-'12)
Penguins: 6 times out of 7 years
Sharks: 7 times out of 7 years
Blues: 2 times out of 7 years
Lightning: 2 times out of 7 years
Maple Leafs: 0 times out of 7 years
Canucks: 5 times out of 7 years
Capitals: 5 times out of 7 years
Jets: 1 time out of 7 years

13 teams have made the playoffs 5 or more times under this CBA. 13. That's two under half the league. Of the teams that made the playoffs for 3 or 4 years [7], 5 of the teams made all of their playoff appearances in consecutive streaks either at the first half of the CBA (Stars, Flames) or the Second half (Blackhawks, Coyotes, Kings). This would be the natural case of some teams just falling apart and other teams on the rise. The Aves have fallen apart and the Sabres are in flux. The other 10 teams have either made the playoffs once, twice, or haven't appeared at all. This isn't "parity". This is the typical good teams staying competitive while other teams naturally run their course and fall apart with their window of competition closed and the previous bad teams drafting well and getting good. This isn't parity.

JmanWingsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 04:46 PM
  #197
Major4Boarding
Global Moderator
Private Equity
 
Major4Boarding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: South of Heaven
Country: Scotland
Posts: 1,807
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BradD View Post
They have alot of depth and are great at recruiting young players anyways.
Agreed. I'll go a step further and surmise that he took a quick and dirty look on CapGeek and came to that overall conclusion... without taking each individual team's depth into account.

Major4Boarding is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 04:47 PM
  #198
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,405
vCash: 500
Every single GM knew 2 years ago that there was going to be a new CBA with lowered cap, any team with cap problems under the NHL's proposed offer can blame ONLY THEMSELVES and nobody else.

And I find it quite entertaining how some pro-PA posters here are worried about Jeremy Jacobs' team having possible cap issues under the new NHL offer.

Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 04:47 PM
  #199
Kane One
Global Moderator
🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨
 
Kane One's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Brooklyn, New NY
Country: United States
Posts: 27,419
vCash: 2810
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJDevs26 View Post
I do think it's a bit of an unneccesary bloodletting, but revenues aren't going to be the same as they were for a full season this year so you kinda need to have it go down drastically. Having a $70 million cap with 60-70% of revenues you'd get from a full season is a LOT more HRR for the players than whatever the paper number is now.

I'd try to work that number up to $63-65 million and go from there.
So why can't they adjust the cap for the next full season? Let's say they make $2.2B during the shortened season (assuming 48 games), why can't they just adjust the cap as if they made about $3.8B?

I think that would make more sense than ruining every teams' cap.

Kane One is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 04:52 PM
  #200
TaketheCannoli
RIP
 
TaketheCannoli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 8,400
vCash: 500
I suspect this offer will go nowhere. I don't think it's anywhere near what the PA will accept. It seems clear to me Fehr's marching orders are to negotiate a deal that doesn't include a large number of major givebacks. The PA seems to be very clear they will say no, rather than get on slippery slope of negotiating within the owner's framework. That framework requires the PA make concessions in every negotiated area.

From that perspective, Fehr's negotiating version of the terrible twos not only makes sense, but seems like a sound approach.

TaketheCannoli is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:12 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.